Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Logic and Defining the "Natural Born Citizen" Clause


                         Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause

                                              By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                 November 28, 2012


Father of Logic



I recently posted this comment to Keith at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog called, Obama Conspiracy Theories:

“You said: ‘[S]o he [Wong] was a born citizen and therefore he was a natural born citizen.’ This is so logically fallacious. Have you ever heard of the fallacy of affirming the consequent? First, the clause is ‘natural born Citizen,’ not ‘born Citizen.’ The clause ‘natural born Citizen’ has one and only one definition which is a child born in the country to ‘citizen’ parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Second, being a born citizen is a necessary condition of being a ‘natural born Citizen.’ It is not a sufficient condition, for the definition also includes birth in the country to citizen parents. Hence, you commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent when you state that if someone is a born citizen he is therefore a ‘natural born Citizen.’"

Then a commentator at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog by the name of dunstvangeet posted this reply to me: “Mario, you talk about logical fallacies. You commit the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent all the time. Your entire argument on Minor is a denial of the Antecedent. If A, then B. Not A. Therefore Not B. If someone is born to two citizen parents and born in the country, then they are a natural born citizen. A is not born to two citizen parents and born in the country, therefore A is not a natural born citizen. Classic case of denying the antecedent. So, you lecturing someone on logical fallacies just broke my irony meter.”

My advice to dunstvangeet which I posted in the same thread is that he should go back to logic school and get his irony meter fixed.

Then on November 27, 2012, Dr. Conspiracy, the owner of the blog, responded to my comment by posting this: “As someone with a graduate degree in mathematics and who has an article published in a scholarly journal on explosions (‘The explosion point characterization theorem’), I hereby issue this affidavit stating: dunstvangeet's comment is a proper application of logical theory to Mr. Apuzzo's comment, and I endorse his conclusion that Apuzzo's reading of the Minor [Minor v. Happersett (1875)] case involves the fallacy of Denial of the Antecedent. Is there a notary in the house?”

So there you have the posture of the question of whether Obama’s supporters and the courts have committed the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent or whether I have committed the fallacy of Denial of the Antecedent. I will now further demonstrate that I have not argued any fallacious position and that on the contrary, it is the Obama supporters who engage in tautological argument and commit the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Let us now examine these issues.

In order to properly analyze the logical question presented here, we have to start with whether there is any settled definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Indeed, there is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen.” That definition is a child born in a country to “citizen” parents. As the reader can see, I have chosen to insert a picture of Aristotle in this article because Aristotle is the Father of Logic. But there is another reason why Aristotle is relevant to this article. Actually, Aristotle also gave us a definition of a “natural born Citizen.” In “Politics, Book Three, Part II, Aristotle, writing in 350 B.C.E., as translated by Benjamin Jowett, gave us his definition of citizenship:

“Part II

But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- 'Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.' Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, 'born of a father or mother who is a citizen,' cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state.

There is a greater difficulty in the case of those who have been made citizens after a revolution, as by Cleisthenes at Athens after the expulsion of the tyrants, for he enrolled in tribes many metics, both strangers and slaves. The doubt in these cases is, not who is, but whether he who is ought to be a citizen; and there will still be a furthering the state, whether a certain act is or is not an act of the state; for what ought not to be is what is false. Now, there are some who hold office, and yet ought not to hold office, whom we describe as ruling, but ruling unjustly. And the citizen was defined by the fact of his holding some kind of rule or office- he who holds a judicial or legislative office fulfills our definition of a citizen. It is evident, therefore, that the citizens about whom the doubt has arisen must be called citizens.”

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html . Here we can see that Aristotle did not define citizenship like the English did in the English common law in which they did not give any relevancy to the citizenship of the child’s parents, provided the parents were not diplomats or military invaders. Aristotle included in the definition of a “citizen” a person “of whom both the parents are citizens.” As we shall see, it is this definition which was handed down through the millennia through the law of nations and which the Founders and Framers adopted for the new republic. We shall also see that Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed that a person who became a citizen by being born in the country to “citizen” parents was know in common law with which the Framers were familiar as a “natural-born citizen.” How do we know that the Founders and Framers looked to Aristotle’s view of citizenship? We learn from the historical record that Supreme Court Justice James Wilson wrote in 1791: “‘Generally speaking,’ says the great political authority, Aristotle, ‘a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.’ … In Wilson's view, "a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.” James Wilson, 1st commentaries on the Constitution. Here we clearly see Wilson referring to what could only be a “natural born Citizen” as "the son of a citizen."

What the Founders and Framers learned from Greek ancient history was confirmed by Roman ancient history. The Founders and Framers looked to ancient Roman history to learn how best to constitute a republican form of government. They also looked to ancient Roman law to understand the law of nature. Roman law provided: “Lex MENSIA, That a child should be held as a foreigner, if either of the parents was so. But if both parents were Romans and married, children always obtained the rank of the father, (patrem sequuntur liberi, Liv. iv. 4.) and if unmarried, of the mother, Uipian.” Alexander Adam, Roman antiquities: or, An account of the manners and customs of the Romans 210 (6th ed. corrected 1807). Cicero wrote in A Proposal:

“The Colophonians claim Homer as their own free Denizen, the Chians challenge him as theirs, the Salaminians demand him again for their own, but the Smyrneans assert him to be their natural born Citizen; and therefore have also dedicated a Temple to him in their Town of Smyrna. There are a great many besides at Daggers-drawing among themselves, and contend for him.”

A Proposal For Printing in English, The Select Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, According to the last Oxford Edition 17 (Henry Eelbeck trans. London 1720).

We also know that the Founders and Framers studied Roman law. The Framers were well read in the Roman and Greek classics as is expounded upon in their writings in the Federalist Papers. Jefferson and other Founders had a love for Roman history and education. The Founders and Framers were great admirers of Cicero and read many of his works. It is not inconceivable that they would have read this English translation of The Proposal and seen the clause “natural born Citizen.” This shows that they did not need to borrow the clause from the English common law’s “natural born subject.” Rather, they had sources which they read which contained the exact clause, “natural born Citizen,” which clause also had its own meaning which was different from that of an English “natural born subject” which allowed children born in the King’s dominion and under his allegiance to aliens to be English “natural born subjects.”

A definition of a “natural born Citizen” was also provided by the world-renowned, Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Vattel had a great influence on the Founders and Framers in their constituting the new republic and writing the Constitution.  See, for example, J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, 3 Am.J. Int’l L. 547 et. seq. passim (1909) (Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often pointed out that his theories served as the backbone for American independence); Lee A. Casey, David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Darin R. Bartram, Unlawful Belligerency and Its Implications Under International Law, http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/PubID.104/pub_detail.asp (concerning U.S. constitutional analysis, “Vattel is highly important. He was probably the international law expert most widely read among the Framers”). In fact, Vattel continued to be practically applied in our nation for well over 100 years after the birth of the republic; F.S. Ruddy, The Acceptance of Vattel, Grotian Society Papers (1972) (Vattel was mainstream political philosophy during the writing of the Constitution. The Law of Nations was significantly the most cited legal source in America jurisprudence between 1789 and 1820). The Founders and Framers studied and were greatly influenced by Vattel. R.G. Natelson, The Original Constitution 49 and 69 (2010) (“Vattel was probably the Founders’ favorite authority on international law . . . .” and his, treatise, The Law of Nations, was their favorite).

“The fourth of the Four Horsemen of American liberty [Algernon Sidney, Samuel von Pufendorf, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel] is Emmerich de Vattel. Although last in this list of forgotten influences, it can be claimed, without exaggeration, that it is Vattel’s interpretations and writings on the subject of the proper constitution of government that was most influential on the Founders of the American Republic. As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson, indisputably one of the lead framers of our nation’s government, ranked Vattel’s seminal The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law as highly as similar treatises by Grotius and Pufendorf. Further proof of Vattel’s impression on the Founders is the fact that Vattel’s interpretations of the law of nature were cited more frequently than any other writer’s on international law in cases heard in the courts of the early United States, and The Law of Nations was the primary textbook on the subject in use in American universities.”

Joe Wolverton, II, Forgotten Influences of the Founders (December 24, 2009), http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/2606-forgotten-influences-of-the-founders .

One more source among many more deserves to be cited to show the authority that Vattel carried with the Founders and Framers on matters of citizenship. During the 1789 Ramsay-Smith congressional debate on whether Representative William Smith was at least a “Citizen of the United States” for seven-years so as to be eligible to be a representative under Article I, Section 2, Smith relied upon Vattel to show that he was such a “citizen.” Smith argued that he was a “citizen.” Smith did not refer to the English common law to show that he was a “citizen of the United States” for the requisite 7 years. Rather, he cited Emer de Vattel for support and said he did not have enough money to come back to America. In his own defense William Smith quotes Emer de Vattel:

“The Doctor [Ramsay] says the circumstances of birth do not make a citizen–This I also deny. Vattel says: 'The country of the father is that of the children and these become citizens by their tacit consent.' I was born a Carolinian [before the Declaration], and I defy the Doctor to say at what moment I was disenfranchised. The revolution which took place in America made me a citizen, though then resident at Geneva…. There was never a moment when I was a citizen of any other country.”

So we can see that William Smith, during a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1789, cited Emer de Vattel in defense of his own citizenship to show that he was eligible to be a Representative of the United States under our Constitution.

Smith said that Vattel said: "The country of the father is that of the children and these become citizens by their tacit consent." Madison said: "Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony." The case for Vattel's "citizen" was clearly made. Smith, in defining his own citizenship did not mention the English common law, but rather looked to Vattel and the law of nations.

Having shown the influence that Vattel had over the Founders and Framers on matters of citizenship, let us now examine what Vattel wrote regarding a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” Here is the full text of Vattel’s Section 212:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Indeed, Vattel defined a “citizen” as simply a member of civil society. He then said that “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” There is little doubt that in this statement Vattel confirmed the definition of a “natural born Citizen” and told us what a “natural-born citizen” was, saying that the “natural-born citizens, are . . .” Hence, he did not only provide a situation among many which defined a “natural-born citizen.” Rather, providing the only definition of the clause, he provided the sufficient and necessary conditions to be met in order for one to be a “natural-born citizen.”

Historical and legal evidence demonstrates that the Founders and Framers adopted this ancient definition as the only definition of a “natural born Citizen.” First, the Founders and Framers put forth in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 presidential eligibility requirement. The clause reads: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.” Like they made a bright line rule as to 35 years of age and 14 years residency, they did the same with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” There is no evidence in the historical record that has come to light which suggests that the Founders and Framers did not agree on what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” was or that someone during the drafting and ratifying conventions took issue with the then existing definition. The Founders and Framers simply would not have used a clause in the Constitution for presidential eligibility purposes the meaning of which was not settled and not debated that meaning during those constitutional conventions. It is therefore absurd to think that there were other hidden definitions of the “natural born Citizen” clause which were yet to be discovered and confirmed in the future or that there could be other persons who could also be “natural born Citizens” but about whom there were doubts whether they were.

Second, there are various U.S. Supreme Court decisions which cited and quoted or paraphrased Vattel and his definition of a “natural-born citizen” and therefore recognized a “natural born Citizen” to be a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. For example, see The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (Founder Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons in a prize case the resolution of which depended upon the citizenship status of the parties, cited Vattel and provided his definition of natural born citizens and said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (held that a child born in the United States inherits the citizenship of his parents); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245, 252 (1830) (providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, Justice Story stated: “If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.” Justice Story in Shanks confirmed the common law maxim that existed in the colonies and during the Founding. That maxim was “partus sequitur patrem” or children follow the condition of their father. “Partus” is defined as “child” or “offspring.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1010 (5th ed. 1979). “Sequitur means to follow. “Patrem” means father. Justice Johnson in his dissent in Shanks further confirmed it when he explained that a “leading maxim[] of common law” then prevailing was “proles sequitur sortem paternam.” “Proles” is defined as [o]ffspring; progeny; the issue of a lawful marriage. In its enlarged sense, it signifies any children.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1091 (5th ed. 1979). Hence, the maxim means children follow the condition of their fathers); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court paraphrased Vattel almost word for word when defining a “natural-born citizen” thus: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Id. at 167-68); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (cited and quoted Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cited, quoted, and affirmed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and held that a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment). There has never been any other definition of a “natural born Citizen” articulated by our U.S. Supreme Court, from the early years of the republic down to the present. The same definition of a “natural born Citizen” has been repeated many times by our U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, this one definition can be the only one that the Founders and Framers used. So, there has never been any other definitions or classes of “natural born Citizens.” With a “natural born Citizen” having only one definition and therefore containing no subsets, it cannot by analogy be compared to animals, plants, or automobiles which each contain many subsets.

From these historical and legal developments, we can express the one and only definition of a “natural born Citizen” thus:

If and only if A is born in the country to citizen parents, then A is a "natural born Citizen."

Or

If A is a "natural born Citizen," then A is born in the country to citizen parents.

Neither of these statements commits what dunstvangeet and Dr. Conspiracy call the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent, for being born in the country to citizen parents are not only sufficient or necessary conditions, but both sufficient and necessary conditions. They are sufficient because if both exist, then one is a “natural born Citizen.” And they are necessary because if one or both conditions do not exist, one cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” The logical error that Obama’s supporters like dunstvangeet and Dr. Conspiracy commit is in not giving the “natural born Citizen” clause a specified and limited meaning. They want to treat a “natural born Citizen” like they would treat animals, plants, and automobiles. Yes, we can agree that the following represents the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent: If Bill owns a dog, he owns an animal. Bill does not own a dog, therefore Bill does not have an animal. The argument is fallacious because Bill could own a cat which is also an animal. But the problem with this simplistic approach is that there is not more than one class of “natural born Citizens” like there is animals which break up into subsets called dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigs, etc. As we have seen, the clause “natural born Citizen” has only one definition. Hence, the factors found in that definition which go to define the clause become both sufficient and necessary. A finding that one’s birth circumstances is missing any one of the necessary constituent factors, i.e., birth in the country or birth to “citizen” parents, is a sufficient basis for us to validly conclude that one is not a “natural born Citizen.” The logical error that Obama’s supporters like dunstvangeet and Dr. Conspiracy commit is in not realizing that because the “natural born Citizen” clause has only one definition, when we say that if a person is born in the country to “citizen” parents, that person is a “natural born Citizen,” we are really saying “if and only if” (expressed as “iff” in logic, and not just “if”) that person is born in the country to “citizen” parents, that person is a “natural born Citizen.”

Now let us examine how Obama’s supporters, in arguing that Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” arrive at their conclusion by way of tautology and the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Jack Maskell, in 2011 wrote a CRS memo entitled, “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service, November 2011, which can be read at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf . Mr. Maskell concludes that a "natural born Citizen" is any person who, under the Fourteenth Amendment or any Congressional Act, becomes a “citizen of the United States” "at birth." A handful of courts that have reached the merits of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and whether President Barack Obama meets that definition have adopted Mr. Maskell’s thesis and ruled that any child born in the United States who is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is a “natural born Citizen,” regardless of the citizenship of the parents, simply because such a child is a “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” or “citizen from birth.” But upon close scrutiny, we can see that there are some grave legal and logical problems with such a simplistic argument.

First, the argument that a “natural born Citizen” is any child that is a “born citizen” is a tautology. The argument is nothing but a repetition of part of the clause we are defining, “natural born Citizen,” with the word “natural” left out in order to make it look like one has actually unlocked some secret to defining the clause and provided a definition of the whole clause. But the definition provided, “born citizen,” or its equivalent, “citizen at birth” or “citizen from birth,” add absolutely no information to defining “natural born Citizen.” Of course, a “natural born Citizen” is a “born citizen,” or “citizen at birth,” or “citizen from birth.” The clause itself tells us that a “natural born Citizen” could not be one who is a citizen not from birth. But simply acknowledging the moment in time at which a “natural born Citizen” comes into being does not provide any definition of the clause, for the statement does not identify what conditions must be satisfied in order for such a person to be a citizen from the moment of birth. So, the Founders and Framers could not have had such a tautological statement in mind as the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” They had to have had a definition in mind that contained real conditions which when satisfied made one a “natural born Citizen.” We have seen above that that definition was a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.

Second, Mr. Maskell and the courts, like Keith, not only engage in reasoning that is tautological, but also commit the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. dunstvangeet and Dr. Conspiracy did not address my argument concerning Keith committing the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Let us examine this fallacy and how it is found in the argument that, Obama is a “natural born Citizen” because he is a U.S. “citizen” “at birth.” In the correct application and understanding of the statement: If one is a “natural born Citizen,” then one is a “citizen at birth,” the condition of being a “citizen at birth” is only a necessary consequence of being a “natural born Citizen.” “Citizen at birth” is not a factor which alone makes one a “natural born Citizen.” Being the necessary consequence of being a “natural born Citizen,” it is not a sufficient condition for becoming a “natural born Citizen,” for we have seen that what is also necessary is birth in the country to “citizen” parents which are the necessary conditions which produce the consequence of being a “citizen at birth.” So, to simply say that all those who are born in the United States and who are “born citizens,” “citizens at birth,” or “citizens from birth” are “natural born Citizens” is not only a tautology, but is also a case of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

To further illustrate this, we can agree what champagne is. Champagne is defined as a sparkling wine produced from grapes that are grown in the Champagne region of France by using certain fermentation rules. Now let us go from this definition to this true statement: If wine is Champagne, then it was “made from grapes grown in the Champagne region of France.” Now let us assume that someone comes along and wants to prove that his sparkling wine is Champagne. He argues that his wine must be Champagne because it was “made from grapes grown in the Champagne region of France.” We scientifically examine his claim and learn that the sparkling wine was “made from grapes grown in the Champagne region of France,” but the producer did not use certain fermentation rules. Actually, “[s]ome use the term champagne as a generic term for sparkling wine, but many countries reserve the term exclusively for sparkling wines that come from Champagne and are produced under the rules of the appellation (footnotes omitted). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne . Did you see that? The wine must also be made under rules of the appellation which is an additional necessary factor to be satisfied in order for any given wine to be Champagne. We must therefore reasonably conclude that the wine is in fact not Champagne because the producer did not use certain fermentation rules which are a requirement to be met if the wine is to be Champagne. So, even though our person’s sparkling wine was “made from grapes grown in the Champagne region of France,” his wine was still not Champagne. That is because having a sparkling wine “made from grapes grown in the Champagne region of France” is a necessary consequence of producing Champagne wine, but it is not a sufficient condition for its creation, for the wine maker must also use certain fermentation rules. So, likewise, being a “born citizen,” or “citizen at birth” or “citizen from birth,” is only a necessary consequence of being a “natural born Citizen,” but it is not a sufficient condition for that type of citizen’s creation, for the age-old definition of the clause also requires birth in the country to “citizen” parents.

From this logical reasoning we conclude that even though Barack Obama may have been born in Hawaii, a fact which he has not yet conclusively proven, which would make him under the Fourteenth Amendment a “born Citizen,” or a “citizen at birth,” or a “citizen from birth,” he is still not a “natural born Citizen” because he was not born to “citizen” parents, meaning a U.S. “citizen” father and mother, which is what the American common law definition requires. And not being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

For a more in-depth analysis of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and explanation of how the clause was defined under the law of nations and American common law rather than English common law, see Mario Apuzzo, “Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Nor a ‘Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,’” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html .

For an explanation of how the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent was recently used by the Vermont Superior Court to dismiss the Vermont ballot challenge of H. Brooke Paige v. Barack Obama, see Mario Apuzzo, “The Vermont Court Errs in Dismissing Presidential Ballot Challenge H. Brooke Paige v. Barack Obama, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-vermont-court-errs-in-dismissing.html .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 28, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved



57 comments:

Jake Martinez said...

The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!
http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetr...
“Food For Thought”
Semper Fi!
Jake

elspeth said...

Easy to standout as an eagle when surrounded by turkeys. Keep up the good work, Mario.

cfkerchner said...

Great work. I posted a link to it in my blog.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The only responses that I have so far received to this article at Dr. Conspiracy's blog are sophomoric personal attacks against me by Dr. Conspiracy and his sycophantic Obot contingent (probably paid trolls).

What is rather disturbing is that there is a commentator there by the name of misha marinsky, who admits to being a communist. For over four years, misha has blamed me for deaths caused by drunk drivers. In reality, there is no connection between me and not even one of any such deaths. Misha should seriously consider the number of deaths caused by, among so many other such leaders worldwide, her political leaders, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong, in their pursuit of imposing communism upon their own people.

“Along with believing in the inevitability of socialism and communism, Marx actively fought for the former's implementation, arguing that both social theorists and underprivileged people should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx. Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong took his advice.

For the number of deaths cause by Joseph Stalin and communism in the Soviet Union, estimated to be at least 20,000,000 but probably over 60,000,000, see http://www.distributedrepublic.net/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/

For the number of deaths caused by Mao Zedong and communism, estimated at 45,000,000 million Chinese in only four years, see http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html .

People like misha marinsky really have a twisted and warped view of reality.

Mick said...

From Previous thread:

Election Contest filed yesterday in Fla. Leon County Circuit Court: Where 102.168(1)(3)(b)gives standing to ANY voter or taxpayer to challenge the "nomination or election of ANY PERSON to office" based on the candidate's eligibility for the office sought. US Code 3 S.5 requires that election contests be adjudicated by the highest judicial tribunal (Fl. Supreme Court)by 6 days prior to Elector Voting Day in order to attain Section 2 status of the Florida Electors. (Meaning that eligibility for office is a JUDICIAL determination-- not a political one-- SPECIFICALLY by US statute). The Florida Supreme Court has also held that eligibility for office is a JUDICIAL DETERMINATION (Shevin v. Stone (1972)). It looks like the Fla. courts will have to make a determination of the meaning of natural born Citizen without first deciding that defendant has no standing (WITH PRECEDENCE). Plaintiff has PERFECT STANDING given by Florida statutes. Will they actually go all in on the lie of Obama's eligibility, and actually lie with precedence?

Mick said...

From previous thread:

Filed in Fla.:

STATEMENT OF FACTS
7. As a Florida elector, claimant has taken an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Art. 6 s. 3 Florida Constitution).
8. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States (Art. 6, c.2). Article 2 Section 1 Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution is a self executing constitutional provision, that uses the words “no person but a natural born Citizen shall be eligible” (sic), leaving no discretion in the eligibility requirement. As a self executing constitutional provision, no law or statute is necessary to enforce it.
9. Plaintiff asserts that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States because he was born a British subject of a British subject father, Barack Obama Sr., whom was married to the mother of Barack H. Obama at the time Barack H. Obama was born.
10. Barack Obama Sr., a citizen of the British colony of Kenya, and his children, were subject to the operation of the British Nationality Act of 1948. By the operation of Part 1 Section 1 of that Act, Barack Hussein Obama became a British subject, upon birth to a British subject father. It is not known whether he has lost that birth allegiance to the British crown.
11. The natural born Citizen clause pertaining to Presidential eligibility is a national security requirement designed to prevent foreign influence in the highest levels of government
12. The purpose of the natural born Citizen clause, prevention of foreign influence, is affirmed by Federalist 68, March, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton. Barack Obama Sr. is “an improper ascendant” (an improper ancestor), and Barack Hussein Obama is not “a creature of their own” (a natural born Citizen).
13. Therefore Barack Hussein Obama is a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States, and its Constitution, which plaintiff must protect and defend by oath.
14. The inclusion of the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution implicitly adopts the concepts of natural law and law of nations (Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952). See also Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 32 (1990), that adoption of a term of art adopts the entire body of law from which it is contained). Law of nations is explicitly adopted in Art. 1 cl. 10 s. 8.
15. The British common law doctrine of “perpetual allegiance” ended on July 4, 1776, when the
16. United States adopted law of nations and the “right of Election.” At that point in time U.S. residents became citizens of the United States, rather than British subjects (see Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 122-126, (1830)). Any construction of natural born Citizen to mean the same as “natural born subject” is inconsistent with the US Constitution and Florida Statute 2.01.
17. Law of Nations defines the term of art “natural born Citizen” as one born in the country parents who are that country’s citizens (see Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).
18. The U.S Supreme Court’s definition of the term of art natural born Citizen mirrors Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” in The Venus, 12 US 253, 289 (1814), Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 679, 680 (1898), and with precedence in Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167, 168. Thus the definition stated therein is the law of the United States.

Maximus Constitutionalus said...

Bravo... Bravo!!!

Maximus Constitutionalus said...

Bravo... Bravo!!!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Kerchner v Obama, attorney Mario Apuzzo, US Constitution, standing, immunity, July 4, 2009

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Kerchner v Obama, attorney Mario Apuzzo, US Constitution, standing, immunity, July 4, 2009 | NowPublic Video Archives http://www.nowpublic.com/world/kerchner-v-obama-attorney-mario-apuzzo-us-constitution-standing-immunity-july-4-2009#ixzz2DqMpR0K2

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/kerchner-v-obama-attorney-mario-apuzzo-us-constitution-standing-immunity-july-4-2009

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mick,

I just got this email.

"Mr. Apuzzo,

One of your commenters named Mick stated that a case had just been filed in Florida relative to the Electoral College.

I would like to pass that information along to my distribution list.

Would it be possible for you to request Mick to provide a link to the case.

Thanks for all you have done."

Name and address provided, but name withheld by me

You can do as you and your legal team deem advisable.

misha trotsky said...

"What is rather disturbing is that there is a commentator there by the name of misha marinsky, who admits to being a communist."

"Communist" has nine letters. "Glenn Beck" has nine letters. Coincidence?


"For over four years, misha has blamed me for deaths caused by drunk drivers...Misha should seriously consider the number of deaths caused by...Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong"

Marx, Stalin and Mao all drove drunk? That's news to me.

misha trotsky said...

"her political leaders...People like misha marinsky really have a twisted and warped view of reality."

This is the true Marxism: "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Misha Trotsky,

This is the true Marxism: “It’s too dark to read. So, therefore, I will read and interpret for you.”

phil stone said...

Would be interesting if people in other states filed against their electoral college votes as Mick has done - expect that standing would be a barrier - Florida law looks good if the judge will read and abide by it. Good luck Mick - old marine Phil Stone

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

A commentator by the name of dunstvangeet asked me this question over at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog:

“Hey, Mario.

U.S. Territory is not considered to be “In the United States” for purposes of the Constitution. For instance, Puerto Rico has seperate codes securing their citizenship that if it was “in the United States” they would not need to have.

What do you think. Do you think someone who was born in a U.S. Territory is a Natural Born Citizen? If not, then how did Charles Curtis become Vice President of the United States when the Constitution clearly spells out that you need to be a Natural Born Citizen to be Vice President.”

Here is my response:

You ask the question whether Charles Curtis, the nation’s 31st Vice President, was a “natural born Citizen.” The question comes up because the Twelfth Amendment extends Article II, Section 1, Clause 5’s “natural born Citizen” requirement that applies to the President, to the Vice-President, meaning that no person except a “natural born Citizen” shall be eligible to the Office of Vice-President of the United States.

A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Apart from having to be born to citizen parents, the other requirement is birth in a country. The American common law definition does not say that one must be born “in the United States” in any strict geographical sense. Rather, the definition uses the word “country.” Charles Curtis was born in January 1860 in Topeka, Kansas Territory when it was not yet a U.S. state which occurred in January 1861. At that time his parents were both U.S. citizens. Curtis satisfies the two-U.S. citizen parents requirement. The issue is whether he was born in the country known as the United States of America.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “country” as: “The territory occupied by an independent nation or people, or the inhabitants of such territory. In the primary meaning, ‘country’ denotes the population, the nation, the state, or the government, having possession and dominion over a territory.” Black’s Law Dictionary 316 (5th ed. 1979).

In January 1860 when Curtis was born, the United States occupied the Kansas Territory. That means that Kansas Territory was part of the country or dominion called the United States of America. The United States, being a country, extended its possessions and dominion to include Kansas Territory, thereby making that territory part of the country of the United States. In fact, Congress even passed laws that affected the territory’s sovereignty. The power and dominion that the United States had over that territory is evidenced by the fact that it became a U.S. state in January 1861. Anybody born in that territory to U.S. citizen parents could owe allegiance to no country other than the United States. Additionally, when Curtis was just one-year old, he was already living in the United States on the same land in which he was born. Hence, Curtis was born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Curtis, being born in the country to U.S. “citizen” parents was a “natural born Citizen” and constitutionally eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be the 31st Vice President of the United States.


jayjay said...

Mario:

A splendid illustration of Aristotle - both verbal and graphical. If one compares it to the oft-seen illustration of Kevin Davidson (Dr. C) and his hangers-on, it becomes clear that the guy in the farmer's hat who frames himself as omniscient comes off far worse than second best (along with his ill-informed cohort).

Clearly as you have shown they are ignorant (at best) but ignorance can be corrected however stooped is forever and they seem to have learned little or nothing after several years of bleating and chest-pounding!!

A great piece that shows the tragedy of our court systems also as well as that of everyday fools.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Cephas Atheos has left a new comment on your post "Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He...":

I'm so glad I found this quiet, dusty corner of the internet.

Your post made great reading, BTW. Very erudite, and well-reasoned and argued. Please don't let the fact that you're factually wrong about pretty much everything that counts get you down.

I'd be interested to see how much better America could do, in reality and in world opinion, if everyone spending so much time and effort to repeat their already refuted anti-American arguments instead spent some time working for the America you all claim to love so much.

The problem as the world sees it, is that while the US has so many reasons to be proud of itself, Truthers, Birthers, and other people incorrectly calling themselves "patriots" are detracting from that united front, by continually repeating themselves, to themselves, using those oft-refuted arguments that no-one listens to any more.

It's truly embarrassing for international readers and thinkers to see so many intelligent, reasonable American people taking up a cause belittling their beloved country; and it's even more embarrassing (if that were possible) to hear those people calling themselves "patriots", when all they're doing is working against the name and strength of the country they purport to love!

I'm incredibly glad I'm not an American, because then I'd be ashamed by these attacks on the dignity and cohesiveness of the country. Instead, like pretty much everyone in the rest of the world who even bothers to listen to the dissent, I'm just embarrassed for the real patriots who have to put up with the BS you guys generate and perpetrate.

Quick question : what does it say about a cause when the cause has been soundly, irrefutably, and completely refuted by the best minds in the rest of the country, yet the followers of that cause continue to offer the same identical arguments without consideration of their truth or value?

Remember what is said when someone does the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

If you guys used your intelligence and knowledge and passion to work for your country instead of against it, imagine what you could achieve!

In fact, I dare you!

Good luck with your self-examination, and I hope you get with the program and work for your country instead of always against it. The opportunity is yours for the taking! Go to it!

My response:

Cephas Atheos,

The "natural born Citizen" clause is not what you in your idealized world wish it to mean. Rather, it means what the Founders and Framers meant it to mean. If we as a society do not like it, then we can change it by constitutional amendment.

Brian Galloway said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Galloway said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Galloway said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Galloway said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Galloway said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Galloway said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MichaelN said...

Cephas Atheos said....

"....you're factually wrong about pretty much everything that counts...."

Let's suppose you can and will give some examples of the factual wrongs.

Otherwise it seems you are just another egotistical blow-hard.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

"New Delhi: Only a natural born citizen of India should be eligible to hold office of President, Vice President and Prime Minister, a BJP member said in a private member's bill introduced in the Lok Sabha on Friday."

'Only natural born Indian citizen should become Prez, PM', accessed at http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/only-natural-born-indian-citizen-should-become-prez-pm_815337.html

Keith said...

Not only do you misrepresent what Wong Kim Ark held, but your also misrepresent what Minor held. You claim that Minor held:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”

Please tead the bolded part Mario. Then read it again.

First: that is NOT the HOLDING. That is commentary on how the Court arrived at the holding: it is DICTA. The holding was that the Constitution does not guarantee a citizen (any citizen) the right to vote.

Second: the part that I put into bold (to encourage you to actually read it) is telling you that there are doubts about whether 2 citizen parents are required, or if born in country is enough.

How can you read that and maintain that it is saying that holding in Minor is that 2 citizen parents are required?

Perhaps you need a picture? Please follow this link:

Diagram detailing the "set of all American Citizens"

A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “naturalized Citizen.”

The terms:

=> “citizen” (when referring to an American) and
=> “Citizen of the United States” and
=> “United States Citizen” and
=> “American Citizens” and
=> “the set of all possible U.S. Citizens”
(including any capitalization variants)

are all equivalent. They mean the same thing. They are interchangeable. They are synonyms.

And they all refer to the exact same group of people.

MichaelN said...

Keith said .....

"A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “naturalized Citizen.”

Not quite right Keith.

I will fix it for you.....

A citizen is either born a citizen or naturalized to become a citizen.

There are two types of born citizens.

i.e. those who are born in US to citizen parents and those who are born in US to non citizen parents.

Even the US Citizenship and Immigration Service recognizes the TWO types of born citizens.

Here are a few abstracts....

"The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation."

"The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (WHICHEVER existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."

"The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss."

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

Keith said...

MichaelN said...

A citizen is either born a citizen or naturalized to become a citizen.

There are two types of born citizens.

i.e. those who are born in US to citizen parents and those who are born in US to non citizen parents


Yes Michael there are several specific birth circumstances that produce 'citizen at birth'. Born in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system is one. Born overseas to two citizen parents is another. There are several other overseas birth variations when only one parent is a citizen.

But all citizens who are citizens from the moment of birth, whether born in the U.S. or overseas are 'Natural Born Citizens'.

The Immigration department rules you quote are not specifying who is a U.S. citizen, they are explaining how U.S. law recognizes the those various birth circumstances. There is no quantifiable difference between any of them, they are either born citizens or they are not.

MichaelN said...

Keith said...

"Not only do you misrepresent what Wong Kim Ark held, but your also misrepresent what Minor held. You claim that Minor held:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”

Please tead the bolded part Mario. Then read it again.

First: that is NOT the HOLDING. That is commentary on how the Court arrived at the holding: it is DICTA. The holding was that the Constitution does not guarantee a citizen (any citizen) the right to vote.

Second: the part that I put into bold (to encourage you to actually read it) is telling you that there are doubts about whether 2 citizen parents are required, or if born in country is enough.

How can you read that and maintain that it is saying that holding in Minor is that 2 citizen parents are required?


Keith, you are all arse about face, there is no other way to read it.

First the SCOTUS says that without any reliance on, or resort to the 14th Amendment, a native-born child, born to US citizen parents, is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT a NBC.

Then the same SCOTUS, in the same paragraph, says that some authorities include as CITIZENS (not as NBCs), those who are native-born, and without any consideration of the parents' US citizenship status.

The SCOTUS then recognizes that there are doubts as to whether native-birth alone is sufficient to even make a US citizen (not talking about NBC here), THEN the SCOTUS acknowledges and gives merit to the doubts, by virtue of saying that the doubts are yet to be solved.

Do you get it now Keith?

Mick said...

The state of Florida is now in violation of US Code 3 S. 5 for not adjudicating with finality a properly made election challenge by the "safe harbor" of 6 days prior to the Elector Meeting (Dec. 17).

"If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the
day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final
determination of any controversy or contest concerning the
appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by
judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination
shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for
the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to
such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior
to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and
shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in
the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the
ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned."---US Code 3 S.5

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Keith,

The historical record and cases from our U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)) demonstrate that born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” are both the sufficient and necessary conditions for being a “natural born Citizen” and that satisfying these conditions causes one to be not only a “born citizen” but also a “natural born Citizen.” This “natural born Citizen” is not to be conflated and confounded with any Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" at birth who does not acquire that status by being born in the country to "citizen" parents, but rather only by being born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," for example, by being born in the United States to one or two domiciled and resident alien parents. See Wong Kim Ark (finding that “ ‘[t]he child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle’” [citing and quoting Horace Binney, American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Am. Law Reg. 193, 203, 204] and holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth because he was born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents). Not satisfying the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., born in the country to “citizen” parents, a Wong Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” is a “born citizen,” but not a “natural born Citizen.”

You argue that being a “born citizen” necessarily makes one a “natural born Citizen.” This is incorrect as a definition which I have demonstrated in my article. It is not incorrect to say that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born citizen,” for being a “born citizen” is a necessary consequent of being a “natural born Citizen.” The problem with your statement is that you pass it off as a definition. But the statement does not provide a real definition of a "natural born Citizen," but only a repetition of the same words to define the clause which I consider to be a tautology, i.e., you statement is true only by virtue of its form and nothing else. With being born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” being the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a “natural born Citizen,” simply saying that a "natural born Citizen" is a "born Citizen" does not provide any definition of the clause, but rather only a repetition of part of the words of the clause ("born citizen") which in and of itself is a necessary consequent of being a "natural born Citizen," but not a sufficient condition. For these reasons, you also commit the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.


MichaelN said...

Keith said .....

"But all citizens who are citizens from the moment of birth, whether born in the U.S. or overseas are 'Natural Born Citizens'."

How about you show were this is said in any US statutes, codes, regulation, etc....... I don't think you can Keith, you are making it up.

Here's what I can find (pertinent parts) as regards, "citizens from the moment of birth" who are born "overseas" and it says NOTHING ABOUT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;"

Now Keith,you explain to me how all these instances make a US NBC, yet there is NOT ONE WORD to that effect.

Then you explain to me how the US Congress and Senate described a child born overseas to US citizen parents as a "natural born citizen" in the first naturalization act of 1790, yet in the later act of 1795 the congress and the senate described such a child as a "citizen of the United States" and NOT a NBC.

Ray said...

It's should be noted that the 1790 act did not state that children born overseas to US citizens are natural born citizens, but that they shall be considered as natural born citizens.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Here is an interesting discussion of polemics by Michael Foucault which I found in a comment on on Dr. Conspiracy’s blog. The Obots there accuse me of engaging in polemics. If one were to investigate all the facts, it is quite clear that it is the Obots who for over four years have engaged in polemics to a T against those who have wanted to arrive at the truth of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” They have attacked me personally in every aspect imaginable. Here is one of the latests among so many which the truth-seeking Dr. Conspiracy has allowed to be posted on his blog and to remain there:

“WASP December 11, 2012 at 7:57 pm (Quote) #

'How dare some greaseball Guinea with a name like Mario Apuzzo claim to be an expert on who is a natural born citizen! Let’s see your papers, boy!'”

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/11/the-occasional-open-thread-faithful-to-the-end/#comments

Here is the discussion by Foucault. You decide:

Paul Rabinow: Why is it that you don’t engage in polemics ?
“Michel Foucault: I like discussions, and when I am asked questions, I try to answer them. It’s true that I don’t like to get involved in polemics. If I open a book and see that the author is accusing an adversary of “infantile leftism” I shut it again right away. That’s not my way of doing things; I don’t belong to the world of people who do things that way. I insist on this difference as something essential: a whole morality is at stake, the one that concerns the search for truth and the relation to the other.

In the serious play of questions and answers, in the work of reciprocal elucidation, the rights of each person are in some sense immanent in the discussion. They depend only on the dialogue situation. The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has been given him: to remain unconvinced, to perceive a contradiction, to require more information, to emphasize different postulates, to point out faulty reasoning, and so on. As for the person answering the questions, he too exercises a right that does not go beyond the discussion itself; by the logic of his own discourse, he is tied to what he has said earlier, and by the acceptance of dialogue he is tied to the questioning of other. Questions and answers depend on a game—a game that is at once pleasant and difficult—in which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of dialogue.

The polemicist , on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in search for the truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is armful, and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then the game consists not of recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak but of abolishing him as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final objective will be not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth but to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition denied.

Continued. . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Perhaps, someday, a long history will have to be written of polemics, polemics as a parasitic figure on discussion and an obstacle to the search for the truth. Very schematically, it seems to me that today we can recognize the presence in polemics of three models: the religious model, the judiciary model, and the political model. As in heresiology, polemics sets itself the task of determining the intangible point of dogma, the fundamental and necessary principle that the adversary has neglected, ignored or transgressed; and it denounces this negligence as a moral failing; at the root of the error, it finds passion, desire, interest, a whole series of weaknesses and inadmissible attachments that establish it as culpable. As in judiciary practice, polemics allows for no possibility of an equal discussion: it examines a case; it isn’t dealing with an interlocutor, it is processing a suspect; it collects the proofs of his guilt, designates the infraction he has committed, and pronounces the verdict and sentences him. In any case, what we have here is not on the order of a shared investigation; the polemicist tells the truth in the form of his judgment and by virtue of the authority he has conferred on himself. But it is the political model that is the most powerful today. Polemics defines alliances, recruits partisans, unites interests or opinions, represents a party; it establishes the other as an enemy, an upholder of opposed interests against which one must fight until the moment this enemy is defeated and either surrenders or disappears.

Of course, the reactivation, in polemics, of these political, judiciary, or religious practices is nothing more than theater. One gesticulates: anathemas, excommunications, condemnations, battles, victories, and defeats are no more than ways of speaking, after all. And yet, in the order of discourse, they are also ways of acting which are not without consequence. There are the sterilizing effects. Has anyone ever seen a new idea come out of a polemic? And how could it be otherwise, given that here the interlocutors are incited not to advance, not to take more and more risks in what they say, but to fall back continually on the rights that they claim, on their legitimacy, which they must defend, and on the affirmation of their innocence? There is something even more serious here: in this comedy, one mimics war, battles, annihilations, or unconditional surrenders, putting forward as much of one’s killer instinct as possible. But it is really dangerous to make anyone believe that he can gain access to the truth by such paths and thus to validate, even if in a merely symbolic form, the real political practices that could be warranted by it. Let us imagine, for a moment, that a magic wand is waved and one of the two adversaries in a polemic is given the ability to exercise all the power he likes over the other. One doesn’t even have to imagine it: one has only to look at what happened during the debate in the USSR over linguistics or genetics not long ago. Were these merely aberrant deviations from what was supposed to be the correct discussion? Not at all—they were the real consequences of a polemic attitude whose effects ordinarily remain suspended.”

http://foucault.info/foucault/interview.html

Carlyle said...

I am yearning for some good news. All this discussion and no action and no resolution.

Mario - you are doing a tremendously invaluable service - and have studied this more deeply than most. Your analysis is FAR ABOVE anyone else in actually trying to determine THE TRUTH rather than trying to squeeze square facts into a round hole of a wished-for solution.

But, alas, the fact remains - just like the MLB umpire, "It ain't nothin' until I call it" - there will be no answer until the USSC decides the call.

And why is that so hard to get? One can only presume that if they believed that The Obama were legitimate, then they could speedily hear a case and issue such a ruling. Is not the fact that they steadfastly and furiously refuse to hear a case indeed strong evidence that they fear the answer - and that they might expect "all hell to break loose!"?

MichaelN said...

Ray said...

"It's should be noted that the 1790 act did not state that children born overseas to US citizens are natural born citizens, but that they shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Interesting point Ray, but if you look at the rest of the act, every entity is "considered as".

"United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.

And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

Ray said...

MichaelN

You are correct. Touché!

juniper55 said...

Is this our last chance?

See the last paragraph. Are ANY Senators or Representatives finally going to stand up and do something?

Quoting from http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html

January 6, 2013

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes on January 6, 2013. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.

If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote.

If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote.

If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.

4zoltan said...

juniper55

"Is this our last chance?"

Not really. After both houses "withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits", each house votes to decide if they will reject the EC votes. Both the House and Senate have to agree to reject the votes.

In 2004 after Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones filed written objections to the counting of the Ohio electorial vote, both houses voted to reject their objections The House of Representatives voted 267-31 and the Senate voted 74-1.

So even if someone could convince a Senator and a Representative to file written objections, the chance that both Houses of Congress would vote to sustain the objection are extremely low.

MichaelN said...

@ Keith

This part of the first US naturalization act of 1790, (which was BEFORE the 14th Amendment) considers the minor children of naturalized aliens, as "citizens of the United States" effective at the time of their alien-born parents US naturalization.

NOWHERE does it say that this part of the 1790 act only applied to the children of alien-born parents who were born overseas.

The first naturalization act of 1790 made no distinction between children who were born overseas and those who were born native in USA to alien born parents.

These children could have been born overseas and traveled to US, or could have been born in the US prior to their parents naturalizing.

i.e. the children born in the US of alien-born parents were not even "citizens of the United States" until their parents naturalized. (if the children were under 21 years old)

From the first naturalization act of 1790.....

"And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."


The framers of the USC and the US Congress and Senate of 1790 were clear in their determination that it was the citizen status of the PARENTS which was paramount in determining the citizenship status of their children.

THAT is WHY in 1790 they considered a child born overseas to US citizen parents as a "natural born citizen", BECAUSE of the US citizenship status of the PARENTS.

Later in 1795, the US Congress and the Senate made the qualifying criteria more stringent and left "natural born citizen" out of the naturalization act, BECAUSE NBC was really a natural state of being, and could not be legislated, which is what the SCXOTUS in Minor Vs Happersett held, when the SCOTUS held, without reliance or resort to ANY legislative act or constitutional article, that a "natural born citizen" was one born to US citizen parents AND native to US.

Red XIV said...

"Born of citizen parents" has never been the definition of "natural born citizen" in the United States. There have always been only two categories of citizen: natural born citizens (those who were citizens from the moment of birth) and naturalized citizens (those who were not, meaning immigrants).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

MichaelN,

You are correct in your interpretation of the early naturalization acts. Congress treated a child born in the United States to alien parents as an alien who could naturalize and become a "citizen of the United States" upon the naturalization of the child's parents if done during the child's minority and if dwelling in the United States or upon the child's own naturalization petition when becoming an adult. See the James McClure 1811 citizenship case which I have written upon at this blog and in my briefs to the courts. In that case, the James Madison Administration ruled that McClure, even though born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, become under the Naturalization Act of 1802 (which contained the same operative language as those of 1790 and 1795) a “Citizen of the United States” only because his British “natural born subject” father naturalized on February 20, 1786 when his son was dwelling in the United States. The 1811 newspaper articles on the McClure case that were printed in the Alexandria Herald and Richmond Enquirer may be found at: http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alexandria-herald.pdf and http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/oct-1-1811.pdf . Source: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/

These early naturalization acts, which were passed by early Congress whose many members of which were Founders and Framers, are conclusive evidence that the Founders and Framers considered only a child born in the United States to parents who were its citizens to be a "natural born Citizen." One can arrive at this conclusion by a process of elimination. All other children, whether born in the United States or out of the United States either were or could be subject to Congress's naturalization powers and could become a "citizen of the United States" either at birth or after birth. But the only child that was not so subject to Congress's naturalization power was a child born in the United States to citizen parents. He needed no positive law for his or her "natural born Citizen" status.

This reality is conclusive on resolving the question of what is a "natural born Citizen." While Jack Maskell errs in concluding that any child who is born a citizen is a “natural born Citizen,” he did concede that a “natural born Citizen” “would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an ‘alien’ required to go through the legal process of ‘naturalization’ to become a U.S. citizen.” Jack Maskell, Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Congressional Research Service, November 14, 2011. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf . Hence, since under the early naturalization acts any child born in the United States to alien parents was “born an alien” and needed to be naturalized, as Maskell concedes, the Founders and Framers would not have considered such a child a “natural born Citizen.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Red XIV,

You said:

"'Born of citizen parents' has never been the definition of 'natural born citizen' in the United States. There have always been only two categories of citizen: natural born citizens (those who were citizens from the moment of birth) and naturalized citizens (those who were not, meaning immigrants).” You err for various reasons, among which are the following:

First, there is no such class of "citizen" in the Constitution called "naturalized citizen." The confusion is created because the clause “citizen of the United States” is ambiguous. Technically speaking, all the U.S. "citizens" are either "natural born Citizens" or "Citizens of the United States," with the latter being all the U.S. "citizens" who are not "natural born Citizens." Generally speaking, we can say that all the U.S. "citizens" are "citizens of the United States," but technically, there is a constitutional distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States,” for only a "natural born Citizen" is eligible to be President.

Second, Minor v. Happersett (1875) held: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Id. at 167-68). So there you have the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court defining a “natural born Citizen” as requiring the constituent element of “born of citizen parents.”

Third, your argument is tautological because it provides no definition at all and is true only because of its form. What you fail to understand is that the state of being a “citizen at birth” does not exist in some undefined vacuum in Minor or in any other U.S. Supreme Court case as you would like us to believe. Rather, Minor, as other U.S. Supreme Court cases that have provided the same definition and which also includes U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explained that “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens” become upon their birth “citizens” also and that these were the “natural-born citizen.” Of course, we can conclude that those citizen children were “citizens at birth,” for that is a necessary condition and birth status of being a “natural born Citizen.” But it was not being “citizens at birth” that was sufficient to make them “natural-born citizens,” for being a “citizen at birth” is only a birth status that one inherits by first satisfying the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it was being “born in a country of parents who were its citizens” that made one a “citizen at birth.” It is this definition that gives meaning and definition to “citizen at birth” within what Minor and Wong Kim Ark described as the context of defining a “natural-born citizen.” Even Wong Kim Ark had to first define a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth to include a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents. The Wong Court had to first identify the necessary and sufficient factors to declare Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth. It could not simply assume that he was a “citizen at birth” and therefore a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth without first having identified the factors which when satisfied gave Wong that birth status. Hence, your argument that a “natural born Citizen” is any “citizen at birth” is nothing but a tautology. The argument is true simply by its form, i.e., a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen,” but not by its substance, i.e., a “natural born Citizen” is defined as A + B. You fail to provide any factors the occurrence of which produce the state of being of what you call “citizens from the moment of birth.”

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Fourth, your argument also commits the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. For example: All natural born Citizens are born citizens. Jack is a born citizen. Therefore, Jack is a “natural born Citizen.” This argument is not logically valid and is fallacious. Jack could have been made a “born Citizen” by constitutional amendment like the Fourteenth Amendment which did not define or amend the “natural born Citizen” clause or Acts of Congress which cannot amend the “natural born Citizen” clause. Jack would not be a “citizen” at all if it were not for such amendment or act, let alone a “natural born Citizen.”

MichaelN said...

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

"MichaelN,

You are correct in your interpretation of the early naturalization acts. Congress treated a child born in the United States to alien parents as an alien who could naturalize and become a "citizen of the United States" upon the naturalization of the child's parents if done during the child's minority and if dwelling in the United States or upon the child's own naturalization petition when becoming an adult."


It's quite easy to grasp Mario.

It seems that "Red XIV" and "Keith" have got "the right answer", since they haven't had anything to say since you educated them on this point.

MichaelN said...

Red XIV said...

"Born of citizen parents" has never been the definition of "natural born citizen" in the United States.

Red XIV, have you not read through the SCOTUS case Minor V Happersett?

Here:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html

"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

MichaelIsGreat said...

When are we going to see some Justice concerning Obama's complete lack of eligibility?!!

Barack Hussein Obama has already bankrupted the US at the rate of more than $1 TRILLION per year and he is ready to do it again for four more years!!!

HUSSEIN OBAMA, THE COMMUNIST, HE MUST BE STOPPED ASAP!!!

Thanks to you, Mr. Apuzzo, for all your efforts to fight for Justice concerning Obama's lack of eligibility.
NEVER EVER GIVE UP UNTIL YOU SUCCEED FULLY.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The early naturalization acts are convincing and irrefutable evidence that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country. Under the early naturalization acts, one of which was the Naturalization Act of 1790, regarding children born in the United States, it was the citizenship of a child’s parents which determined whether the child was a citizen or not. Even if the child was born in the United States, if the child’s parents were not U.S. citizens, the child was nevertheless not recognized to be born a citizen and had to naturalize derivatively or on his or her own. Under these acts, only if a child was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents was the child not required to naturalize under these acts. As to children born abroad, if they were born to U.S. citizen parents, they were naturalized at birth and needed no further naturalization. These Congressional Acts abrogated any English common law rule that may have prevailed in the colonies before the revolution and the Constitution was adopted.

While Jack Maskell errs in concluding that any child who is born a citizen is a “natural born Citizen,” he did concede that a “natural born Citizen” “would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an ‘alien’ required to go through the legal process of ‘naturalization’ to become a U.S. citizen.” Jack Maskell, Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Congressional Research Service, November 14, 2011. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf . During the Founding, the wife and children followed the citizenship of the husband and become of one U.S. citizenship with his. Hence, U.S. citizen parents could only mean a father and mother who were both U.S. citizens. Hence, since under the early naturalization acts any child born in the United States to alien parents was born an alien and needed to be naturalized, as Maskell concedes, the Founders and Framers would not have considered such a child a “natural born Citizen.”

If Obama was born in 1791, he would have been born an alien. Since his father never naturalized to be a U.S. citizen and he himself never naturalized when becoming an adult, he would have remained an alien.

The Fourteenth Amendment changed who could be a “citizen of the United States” but not who could be a “natural born Citizen.” The amendment included as a “citizen of the United States” even children born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents.

Obama was born in 1961. If he was born out of the United States, his father was not a U.S. citizens and his U.S. citizen mother was too young in 1961 to transmit her U.S. citizenship to her new-born son. Hence, in such a case, Obama would be an alien.

If Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, he would be a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" at birth, but because he was not born to a U.S. citizen father and only to a U.S. citizen mother, he would not also be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

For more indepth analysis of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” see Mario Apuzzo,
Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause at
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html and the many other articles at the web site. Also, see Appellant’s Brief in H. Brooke Paige v. James Condos, Vermont Secretary of State and Barack Obama, now pending in the Vermont Supreme Court.

js said...

If Obama was born in 1780, he would not have been a Citizen at all, let alone, an NBC.

Obama was born in 1961. He was born a Citizen of Britain, and possibly a Citizen of the USA. If he was actually born in Hawaii, the 14th amendment gave him US Citizenship, he was naturalized by man made laws, and was never a natural born citizen of any country.

No man made law can make someone a natural born citizen. It is a status that you are either born with, or without.

The term "Natural Born Citizen" is exclusive, in that it is only used 1 time in the US Constitution. Nothing every altered its meaning or intent. The 14th amendment never mentioned anything about a NBC, or the qualification to become PoTUS, therefore, the term remains intact and its intent is the Law of the Land.

ALL the Judges who fail to take into consideration every aspect, and every precedent, into thier rulings about this issue, failed through omission. Ignoring these, in turn, demonstrate a behavior pattern that violates the oath of office taken by Judges ("that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States"). Originally, good-behavior tenure was forfeitable upon a judicial finding of misbehavior. Any Citizen could file civil suit with allegations of bad conduct to remove a Judge.

Ray said...

Voeltz v. Obama dismissed

http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=64293606&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=6821636&dktsource=CRTV

From the dismissal:

This Court notes that President Obama lives in the White House. He flies on Air Force One. He has apeared before Congress, delivered States of the Union addresses, and meets with Congressional leaders on a regular bais. He has appointed countless ambassadors to represent the interests of the United States throughout the world. President Obama's recent appointment of The Honorable Mark Walker, formerly a member of this Court, has been confirmed by the United States Senates. Judge Walker has been sworn in as a United States District Court Judge and currently works at the Federal Courthouse down the street. The Electoral College has recently done its work and elected Mr. Obama to be President once again. As this matter has come before the Court at this time of year it seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the fictional Judge Henry X. Harper from New York in open court in the classic holiday file 'Miracle on 34th St.' "Since the United States Government declares this man to be President, this Court will not disput it. Case dismissed."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Ray,

I am really surprised by Judge Carroll’s comment. Such mockery and illogical reasoning by our judges brings contempt upon our courts and is a mar upon the integrity and professionalism of the American judicial process. Judge Carroll could have just said that the matter was res judicata (already decided) or the court lacked jurisdiction and that would have been the end of it. But he has to go further and inject mockery into a judicial decision. Addressing his mockery only, I have shown in this article how the courts have engaged in tautological reasoning (by finding that a “natural born Citizen is any “born citizen”) and committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent (by finding that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen.” Obama is a “born Citizen.” Therefore, Obama is a “natural born Citizen”) in finding that Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Now we have the Florida court committing more logical fallacies. First, the plaintiff Michael C. Voeltz’s constitutional challenge is that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Does Judge Carroll really believe that by acting presidential Obama somehow magically becomes and proves that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen?”

Second, Judge Carroll should study what a de facto officer is because that is exactly what he has described in his comment. Following Judge Carroll’s logic, a de facto president, a president who is not constitutionally legitimate but who has usurped the office and who because of practical reasons is tolerated for the time he occupies and exercises the powers of the office but who can be legally removed through a prescribed legal process, would automatically be converted into a de jure president (a president who is constitutionally legitimate) and the concept of Article II presidential eligibility would be meaningless.

Third, Judge Carroll’s reliance on Miracle on 34th St. Judge Henry X. Harper is not only misplaced, but actually contradicts his own point. Judge Harper ruled that since the United States Government believed in God without there being any evidence of God’s existence, defendant Santa Clause could hold himself out to the public as being Santa Clause even though he did not have any evidence to prove that he was in fact Santa Clause. Hence, he dismissed the charges brought against Santa Clause. Is Judge Carroll telling us that Obama can be President even though there does not exist any evidence of his being an Article II “natural born Citizen” just like as Judge Harper found the United States Government can believe in God even though there is no evidence of His existence or Santa Clause can hold himself out to be Santa Clause even though he does not have any evidence that he is in fact Santa Clause? What is ironic is that Judge Carroll has actually described the state of affairs when it comes to Obama’s eligibility to be President without intending to do so.



Mick said...

The judges in Florida are absolutely praetorian guards of the Usurper and the Criminal Congress, and Carroll even has the nerve to threaten me w/ sanctions. I have filed a proper election complaint, to the letter of the law, challenging the “nomination or election of ANY PERSON to office" (Fl. ss. 102.168(1), based on that person’s ELIGIBILITY for the office sought (Fl. ss. 102.168(3)(b)). The action has been filed timely (within 10 days after the final certification of the election by the Elections Canvassing Commission-- per Fl. ss. 102.168(2)). The Fla. ECC has certified that “Barack Obama and Joe Biden (DEM) was elected President of the United States” (ECC certificate) as of November 20, 2012, and this action was filed and served by November 29, 2012. The action enjoins the ECC as an indispensible party (Fl. ss. 102.168(4), and is filed in the correct venue of Leon Co. Circuit Court (Fl. ss. 102.1685).

This action CANNOT BE DISMISSED for “want of form” (Fl. ss. 102.168(5)), and plaintiff is entitled to “AN IMMEDIATE HEARING” (Fl. ss. 102.168(7). Carroll completely violated the election statutes of Fla. as well as Federal statute 3 US Code 5.
3 US Code 5 stipulates that ALL ELECTION CONTESTS should be determined w/ finality by 6 days prior to the meeting of electors (Dec. 11), BY THE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL assigned by the state, or the Electors’ vote shall NOT BE CONCLUSIVE. Since ELIGIBILITY is a proper cause of action, according to the laws of Fla., of an election contest, then ELIGIBILITY must be ascertained by the judicial tribunal (Leon Co. Circuit Court, then Appeals, then Supreme) assigned by the legislature of Fla. by 6 days prior to the elector meeting— and the judiciary made NO DETERMINATION, and illegally dismissed a proper contest of election.

Judge Carrol’ls “ruling” flies directly in the face of the law that he purports to represent. Now, I realize that I am arguing a defunct law, since the putative President, who is the executor of the laws, is illegal, then there is no law, and no constititution. There is only the rule of evil men. I will make them ALL lie, all the way to the top. History will know the criminals that sold out the Republic.
I am not afraid. The truth sets me free.

Mick said...

My election contest is every bit as valid as Al Gore's after the 2000 general election. It was filed to the letter of the law of the Florida Election statutes.
In Bush v. Gore the majority agreed with the minority of 772 So. 2d., @1269, that the Florida electorate would be disenfranchised by a violation of the 3 US Code 5 6 day window of the Elector Meeting(See 531 US 98,122 (2000)).

Gore's case, in accordance w/ Fl. statutes and 3 US Code 5 was settled by the highest judicial tribunal prior to the 6 day window. My case never even received due process, and was summarily dismissed 3 days AFTER the Elector Meeting, and 9 days past the "safe harbor" window. Therefore the judiciary has made new election law, violated Art. 2 of the US Constitution, and the Electors of Fla. shall not be ascertained and shall not be conclusive.

bdwilcox said...

Mick,

I thought I'd heard and seen everything when I sat in court with Mario, heard the judge admit he had zero evidence of who Obama is (his legal name, place of birth, age, parentage, etc.) and then turn around and declare Obama born in the United States and a Natural Born Citizen.

But, but, but...Carrol...this clown's ruling...I can't express...it's enough to gag a maggot. They've become so brazen, so arrogant, so treasonous that they openly mock us and the law and, in so doing, mock the Constitution and the principles our nation was founded on.

Needless to say, I'm sure you know how much those of us in the fight appreciate your hard work and risk-taking to fight, and in so doing, expose the conspirators.

We may not win, but then it wasn't our place to win. But it's our place, and every patriot's place, to do what we can to expose them and their corruption, to fight the good fight and finish the race. We know who ends up winning in the end and we know who loses. And while our loss may sting, it will be temporary. Their loss, on the other hand, will be eternal. This is a fight of good versus evil whose jurisdiction lies far outside any courtroom, any state, or any nation.

I keep going back to a poem I wrote many years ago. Considering I never wrote a poem before or had any inspiration to write something like this, I do consider it a sign of the times. I hope you can take some comfort in it. And never give up the fight.

The Destination (A Poem for the Wicked)

He sees the beauty seen by few,
that gold and silver thread;
that winds about the precious jewel,
that scorners mock instead.

Their eyes are covered with deceit,
their hearts as cold as stone;
their love is dead, their mercy bleak,
no marrow to their bone.

They mock, they cry, they threaten forth,
their hate like bitter wine;
their poison spills into the street,
on righteous blood they dine.

But come what may in days ahead,
what clouds may darken sky;
their destination always known,
a righteous Judge to try.

-bdwilcox

Stan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

First of al, thank you very much for your continued hammering away at the facts in this regard. I'm of the opinion that the truth will prevail, ultimately. America is bigger than its citizens at any given time.

Secondly. In terms of valuable information as regards the attitude of the Framers to this question, it is my understanding that A. Hamilton's first-draft attempt at a constitution at the C. Convention simply required the presidential candidate to be a "citizen" - and his proposal was, in the event, turned down, in favor of the stricter, NBC requirement.

Isn't this a powerful argument for the 'citizen parents' position? And if that is indeed the historical case, shouldn't it be used more often in these sorts of discussions??

Please don't let this issue die, even if the de facto office holder is heading into a second term. The Truth of matters must be upheld at all costs.

At all costs. For there is nothing higher - more noble - than that. And everything else is of a lower order.

And some matters, the lowest of the low.

Stan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

First of all, thank you for keeping on top of this issue. There can be nothing more important to the Republic than its keeping in alignment with its rule of law. There be dragons outside of those perimeters.

Secondly. It is my understanding that A. Hamilton, in his first-draft proposal to the C. Convention, made the requirement for the president to be simply a 'citizen' - and in the event, his proposal was rejected, in favor of the more stringent NBC requirement. Is this a historical truth? And if so, isn't this a powerful argument for your take on the NBC definition, in these sorts of discussions??

Please continue to stay on top of this matter. Just because the de facto office holder is about to go into his second term of the purloined presidency doesn't mean that Truth shouldn't prevail. There is nothing more important than Truth. Else it makes life itself a lie.